A federal court ruling this summer in a case involving the Southland affirmed that elected officials — not citizens — get to decide referendum questions that appear on ballots.

“Illinois law limits to three the number of referenda on any ballot,” a federal judge wrote in a June appellate court ruling involving a dispute in Calumet City. “The parties call this the ‘Rule of Three.’”

State Rep. Thaddeus Jones, D-Calumet City, and others sued Mayor Michelle Markiewicz-Qualkinbush. Supporters of Jones, a former alderman, wanted to place a term-limit question on the November 2016 ballot. If voters had approved the measure, Markiewicz-Qualkinbush would have been unable to seek re-election in 2017.

Calumet City had already placed three referendum questions on the ballot when Jones supporters tried to present their initiative. Jones alleged in his lawsuit that this violated his First Amendment right to free speech, but courts rejected the argument.

“This assumes that the ballot is a public forum and that there is a constitutional right to place referenda on the ballot,” the court said in an opinion written by Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Frank H. Easterbrook. “But there is no such right. Nothing in the Constitution guarantees direct democracy.”

We’re an indirect democracy, Easterbrook wrote. Citizens elect representatives to make all types of decisions, including ballot initiatives, the judge wrote. He cited numerous legal precedents and noted that the “Rule of Three” has a rational basis in law.

“Limiting the number of referenda improves the chance that each will receive enough attention, from enough voters, to promote a well-considered outcome,” Easterbrook wrote on behalf of the court.

The ruling made clear that the “Rule of Three” is valid. Some people are unhappy that a party in power can seemingly abuse the “Rule of Three” to clog ballots with sham questions that deny citizens the chance to pose questions about other issues.

For example, last week the Democratic-majority Cook County Board voted to place three advisory questions on the Nov. 6 ballot.

One question asks, “Shall the minimum wage in your municipality match the $13 per hour Cook County minimum wage law for adults over the age of 18 by July 1, 2020, and be indexed to the consumer price index after that?”

The second asks, “Shall your municipality match the Cook County earned sick time law which allows for workers to earn up to 40 hours (five days) of sick time a year to take care of their own health or a family member’s health?”

The third question asks, “Shall the state of Illinois strengthen penalties for the illegal trafficking of firearms and require all gun dealers to be certified by the state?”

The county board voted overwhelmingly to place the questions on ballots. A couple Republican members dissented on each of the three questions, including Commissioner Sean Morrison, R-Palos Park.

Morrison chairs the Cook County Republican Party. Morrison and the party released a statement Wednesday that said, due to the county board’s actions on the referendum questions, the party was canceling its initiative to seek a binding referendum to make countywide elections nonpartisan.

“This is yet another example of a government body putting, “Is the grass green and the sky blue?” questions on the ballot in order to block a referendum question that would threaten the status quo, weaken the Chicago Democrat(ic) Machine and give a voice to residents of suburban Cook County,” the party said in the statement.

I disagree with the GOP’s initiative to make elections nonpartisan. I think it’s like a weak football team that repeatedly gets clobbered by a formidable opponent proposing a rule change that would ban uniforms. Confused players and fans would be unable to tell members of one team from another.

Football games would be a ridiculous exercise in folly. The weak team wouldn’t care, though, because amid all the confusion they might score a few more points against the opponent who consistently outmatched them at every level.

“Politics is a rough-and-tumble game, where hurt feelings and thwarted ambitions are a necessary part of robust debate,” Easterbrook wrote in his opinion in the “Rule of Three” case involving Calumet City.

The court’s opinion made me think about how politics isn’t always fair. People in power get to make decisions. Few decisions please everyone. Many feel aggrieved that a group holding a majority is able to dictate policy to others.

There is a recourse available to those in a minority who seek a remedy to situations like the “Rule of Three.” The solution is political, not legal, the judge wrote.

“The price of political dirty tricks must be collected at the ballot box rather than the courthouse,” the opinion by Easterbrook concluded.